Claim of Coles v. Connelly Holding Corp.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• reaffirming that an insurer’s breach of its duty to defend does not preclude that insurer from arguing that underlying incident was excluded by policy or otherwise outside of its coverage as a defense for indemnification
• noting that while \there is much to be said\ for a rule that an insurer that breaches the duty to defend is precluded from asserting coverage defenses, there is also \much to be said for the Servidone rule\
• rejecting the plaintiff’s attempt to distinguish Servidone on the basis that it involved a settlement
• “An insurer that rejects a valid request for defense is bound by facts necessarily decided in the underlying action, but the terms of the insurance policy determine the scope of coverage.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).